Judge overturns Prop 8

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Raiha' date='08 August 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1281286229' post='699092']
[font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#9932cc"]
I am not for one convinced that this ruling will stand on it's own for very long, because it has yet to go to the federal level, and here's where the intellectuals try to tell me that the federal government can't interfere with the rulings of the state and blah blah blah blah blah but we all know it's going to happen anyway so why bother celebrating now. All of this is premature until the bolt from Mount Olympus [that'd be the Supreme Court for you unimaginative types] comes crashing down into our bedrooms.
[/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]I agree with you on this point. The federal government constantly interferes with the powers of the state (education, drug enforcement, and traffic laws come instantly to mind), they hold the nations piggy bank, if states don't tow the line then their allowance is forfeit.

The good news for the gay community is that it seems pretty doubtful that the Supreme Court will actually hear a case regarding gay marriage. I think it is a very unpopular topic amongst the judges right now because, while many don't support it politically, none of them wants history to remember them as the Justices that are later remembered for approving laws that may be perceived as violations of Americans' civil liberties.[/color]

[James]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='09 August 2010 - 05:12 AM' timestamp='1281291121' post='699095']
[color=indigo]

The good news for the gay community is that it seems pretty doubtful that the Supreme Court will actually hear a case regarding gay marriage. I think it is a very unpopular topic amongst the judges right now because, while many don't support it politically, none of them wants history to remember them as the Justices that are later remembered for approving laws that may be perceived as violations of Americans' civil liberties.[/color]
[/quote]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Maybe I'm only parroting commentary that I've heard, but I had thought that the Supreme Court has always refused to hear cases based on the definition of marriage. The only action I can think of from the federal level in recent years was the attempt by the Bush Administration to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage (I wonder how [i]that[/i] will be viewed in in several years time).

My understanding is that now the Obama Administration has basically taken a hands-off approach, saying that gay marriage should be an issue for the states.

For me personally...I do think there's a reason why it isn't a good idea for voters to make decisions about rights issues. I mean, we elect representatives with the idea that they will vote on issues within the relevant congress/parliament. I don't see that everything needs to be a direct referendum.

The great thing about the constitution is that it protects minorities from "mob rule". This is also true to some extent for legislative bodies. And this is the very reason why some are suspicious of such bodies and why others (like me) believe that they should be left to do their work.[/font]